OT: ESPN showing Douglas-Tyson fight | Page 2 | The Boneyard

OT: ESPN showing Douglas-Tyson fight

Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
4,315
Reaction Score
7,397
I haven't seen the 30 for 30 yet, but it's my most vivid memory of a sports event as a kid for sure and I haven't watched a single sporting event more than that fight.


You fight who you fight and they never dodged anyone in that time period.

Your frame of reference is also why we all like the band/music that was big when we first discovered music. Regardless of how good he was on the come, Tyson was done at 23. Those facts dictate flash in the pan, but he was good enough during his rise to merit mention amongst the greats. But true greatness must be sustained and the most you could say about Tyson is he could have been one of the greatest ever. Tyson himself doesn't cling to the mythology that his early fans still do. It is not about opponents (facing 'greats' is a strawman especially when you get to throw out 2 losses to Holyfield?!), its sheer number of fights and duration of career that is severely lacking. I don't see where 'dodged' has anything to do with any boxer historically, but it was Tyson's own damn fault that he didn't fight Holyfield earlier and Tyson's fans need to hold him accountable for the missed years and losing his edge while on top. Other fighter lost titles or years & still came back had superior careers. One of the things that makes boxing great is the underdog winning or coming off the deck or a regular comeback - Tyson was never able to do it and yet that preserves a myth that early Tyson was different and an all-timer.

I think the greatest fighter I ever saw was Sugar Ray Leonard cuz I watched him as a kid win in the 76 Olympics and then watched his every fight on ABC. I'm not sure if my bias effects thinking he beat Marvin Hagler. Sugar Ray had multiple peaks and valleys and great fights over a long career. I don't think he was the greatest fighter ever (its Ali), but I enjoyed more fights of his than any other boxer.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2015
Messages
1,970
Reaction Score
10,557
Tyson was 80,000 times the draw Sugar Ray Leonard was. They weren't ever in the same zip code.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
8,244
Reaction Score
17,519
Longevity absolutely matters, which is why Tyson can’t be mentioned in the conversation of the best heavyweight ever. I know this even though I firmly believe that 22 year old Tyson beats the best heavyweight ever (Ali).
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2015
Messages
1,970
Reaction Score
10,557
I'm not saying he's the best all time in terms of his resume. Peak Mike Tyson is the best boxer i've ever seen, in any division, ever. Whether he was able to hold it together is an entirely different discussion.

At his absolute peak from 84-89, no one in any division has boxed like that. He was a cyborg.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2015
Messages
1,970
Reaction Score
10,557
There are probably 5-10 guys you can make a better resume case for at heavyweight without having to give it much thought.

But take any of those guys at their absolute best and match them up with Tyson at his absolute best and they get annihilated. He couldn't hold it together for a range of reasons, but he did get there and sustained it for 4 or 5 years.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2015
Messages
1,970
Reaction Score
10,557
Maybe i'm too old school for my own good w/ boxing - but Joe Louis is better than Ali by quite a bit.

Up until literally when he lost to Ezered Charles, Louis has 7 fights that went to double digit rounds out of 59. That's literally insane. And EVERYONE is on that list. Bill Conn, Jimmy Braddock, Jersey Joe Wolcott, Schmeiling, Sharkey, Baer, Carnera... He basically beat every good fighter on almost two opposite ends of his dominance.

He's the best heavyweight ever to me. Hands down.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
4,315
Reaction Score
7,397
The first heavyweight anyone mentions is Ali. He had the best fights, was the most iconic and beat every one. Peak Ali pre-suspension was the fastest heavyweight of all-time by a lot and had the chin that was on display vs Frazier, Foreman et all later. Even if you retain the 'your guy growing up' awe of Tyson's power, Ali's mental game would have absolutely devastated Tyson.

In terms of Sugar Ray, his bouts vs Hearns, Duran & Hagler were as big as any ever ushered in the modern pay-per-view at home era and given that he was a welterweight/middleweight this is even more impressive. The breadth of Sugar Ray's career (early appointment TV on ABC) and the many opponents and years on PPV and in arenas (I saw Sugar Ray v Hagler at the freaking Hartford Civic Center on PPV) is really impressive. Just 3yrs after Leonard-Hagler, most people weren't even watching Tyson-Douglas.

The 80,000 times thing is a perfect illustration of the Tyson fanboy bias - Leonard v Hagler grossed 130M in 87, Tyson v Spinks 2 yrs later did 150M. Even not taking into account how PPV grew exponentially or inflation that's 6.50% annually better < 80,000 ;)
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2017
Messages
701
Reaction Score
1,836
Following the 30 For 30 on the fight, ESPN is airing the fight itself. On now.

Biggest sports upset I ever watched live. Still get goosebumps thinking about it.

The fallacy that a 10 count equals 10 seconds started with this fight. It's reared its head in the Fury/Wilder fight as well. Douglas (and Fury) were quite aware of the referees cadence... in contrast to when Tyson was getting up with a head full of cobwebs.
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2017
Messages
701
Reaction Score
1,836
Maybe i'm too old school for my own good w/ boxing - but Joe Louis is better than Ali by quite a bit.

Up until literally when he lost to Ezered Charles, Louis has 7 fights that went to double digit rounds out of 59. That's literally insane. And EVERYONE is on that list. Bill Conn, Jimmy Braddock, Jersey Joe Wolcott, Schmeiling, Sharkey, Baer, Carnera... He basically beat every good fighter on almost two opposite ends of his dominance.

He's the best heavyweight ever to me. Hands down.

Best heavyweight can mean a lot of things.

Are you going by significance to what he did in his generation, or most decorated, or are you going by the standard that one guy would beat the other head up.

My Top 5 Heavyweights of all-time

1. Ali.
2. Louis
3. Marciano
4. Holmes
5. Holyfield (most underrated HW ever. Cleaned out the Cruiserweights before beating some of the biggest names of his generation - Tyson, Bowe, Foreman, etc)
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
4,315
Reaction Score
7,397
That's a great list, Holmes was so dull by comparison to Ali and his dominance by technique somehow obscured his boxing abilities.
I don't know what to do with Ali's nemesis Foreman, Frazier & Norton. Norton gets gypped historically especially given that he was robbed of a decision at least once. I think because Foreman had a big second act and was so dominating in phase I he is knocking on the door of top-5, put him in a tie with Holyfield. In each of their primes, Frazier & Norton bully the bully Tyson before he even gets to Ali.
 

Marat

The Champ Is Here.
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
3,528
Reaction Score
14,307
I haven't watch the 30 for 30 yet, but alot has been said already in this thread ... Tyson was an attraction who people around the world watched on TV at a level more than any. Ali was in an era when it was more difficult to watch, but still had a huge following around the world. Tyson losing to Buster was probably more shocking than the miracle on ice.

Now in the current HW division, Wilder will probably fight Fury again, but Wilder vs Joshua would be an exciting fight if they can agree to it soon. Assuming Wilder doesn't lose to Fury, both camps have to come to terms to make it happen. Wilder would probably to travel to the UK for that one.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2015
Messages
1,970
Reaction Score
10,557
Ali pre-suspension was the fastest heavyweight of all-time by a lot

Woof - Ali the fastest heavyweight ever? I dunno if he was the fastest heavyweight of his time period. Ezzard Charles and Patterson were A LOT faster and if we want to break into the 'level of talent relative to the talent of the time' territory, you could probably argue Corbett and Tommy Burns too.

I'd also argue Tyson was faster.

Even if you retain the 'your guy growing up' awe of Tyson's power, Ali's mental game would have absolutely devastated Tyson.

I completely disagree.

Tyson was much faster and much stronger. Ali's undeniably a great fighter - and if we're all being truthful - we didn't even get to see him at his absolute zenith because of the Vietnam stuff so we're into total fantasy land here - but he's just not physically in that zip code.

Tyson ended 41% of his fights within three minutes and it wasn't just his power, it was the speed in which he was able to reel off multiple power shots - hooks and uppercuts. Tyson has always said - and every trainer he had always said - they prioritized his hand speed over his power.

Ali was good at creating distance and space with his footwork. But it failed him a ton of times and he always struggled badly with pressure fighters. Oscar Bonavena, Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Ernie Shavers, Ken Norton - basically anyone who pressured him had a measure of success.

Tyson fought from a traditional stance so he didn’t waste nearly as much motion as Ali. When he avoided a punch he did so with quick snaps and bursts. Ali was all bout mid-drift dexterity, leans and foot shuffles... and worse - trips to the corner to let guys hammer on his arms.

To be honest - Ali's defense kind of sucked to the point where it was an ongoing joke. Like he was really theaterical and entertaining - and if we're talking about real over-romanticization - it's Ali's defense. His talking about it (he talked about it in the biography) being great - masked it being pretty bad. And fighters would consistently overprepare for this great defense, over extend and get too picky at range. Ali was at his best landing significant shots backing up while locking up his opponents. But that's because they were busy trying to solve a riddle that wasn't there.

His arms were never in a defensive position and he flat out never cared about defending his body. OR really anything for that matter. I'm not trying to be THAT guy - but there's a reason he got Parkinson's and that's from the damage he took on a regular basis.

That and watch any Ali fight and start watching the number of left hooks he gets hit with and you'll give up by round-5. That was Tyson's bread and butter.

Tyson's defense was overstated, too - but he wasn't open for businesses all fight long to the extent Ali was. He got knocked out more in his career, but i'm not sure he sustained a tenth of the punishment.



I hear the argument about Ali's chin and yeah - I'd be there in saying - IF Ali could get past the fifth/sixth round, he'd probably be able to outclass Tyson in the later rounds. Tyson always got anxious when he couldn't put guys out early. Ali's clearly a better conditioned fighter.

I just don't know how Ali gets out of the first three rounds. Like everything he did poorly rolls into Tyson's strengths and truth be told - Tyson KO'd a lot of guys dead who had fantastic chins. I'm not sure it's much of a defense.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2015
Messages
1,970
Reaction Score
10,557
That's a great list, Holmes was so dull by comparison to Ali and his dominance by technique somehow obscured his boxing abilities.
I don't know what to do with Ali's nemesis Foreman, Frazier & Norton. Norton gets gypped historically especially given that he was robbed of a decision at least once. I think because Foreman had a big second act and was so dominating in phase I he is knocking on the door of top-5, put him in a tie with Holyfield. In each of their primes, Frazier & Norton bully the bully Tyson before he even gets to Ali.

Yeah well here you and I can agree on a lot.

My not so bad hot take is if Ken Norton fights in any other era, he's Heavyweight Champion. He got screwed against Ali for sure - but plenty of other fights. Just wasn't the PR machine those guys were. But he's arguably a more complete fighter than all three.

Are you going by significance to what he did in his generation, or most decorated, or are you going by the standard that one guy would beat the other head up.

I think the only way you can do this is relative to their time periods. You just can't seriously make a case Jack Dempsey could do anything against Evander Holyfield. Or that Jim Corbett would last more than 2 minutes with Sonny Liston. Different physicality, strength, speed, nutrition, etc.

I do however - think you can compare dominance relative to their competition in their area. One of my less productive, but some of my more fun thoughts are taking a particular 'great fighter' out of that era and try to project out the landscape.

I'm also into both 'peaks' and 'sustained success' - because I think they're both important. Fighting is weird and so much can happen. Styles make fights, too - so like... while I think say a Tyson would murder an Ali, I think George Foreman would kill him dead. It's not that Tyson is greater than Ali or that Foreman is better than Tyson. IT's just how they'd match up is all.


It's the same thing in MMA. Jose Aldo *objectively* was a better, more well rounded fighter than Conor McGregor. Absolutely superior ground game, battle tested, big chin, and just as good a hand speed as Conor. There are about 6 ways Aldo could have won their fight to Conor's one. But Conor's rangey which Aldo struggled with and at least at that weight class - his power is just on a different level. Is Aldo a better, more talented and skilled fighter? Yep. But Conor knocked him out in 13 seconds.

That's kind of why when you asked me about Tyson - he'd be my 'peak' guy (I think, Louis is right there). I don't think anyone boxed better for a period of time than Tyson did when he was on top in the mid-late 80s. He was physically and technically doing things at a level I never saw before and honestly haven't really seen since.

I also believe you just can't compare Tyson's resume to say - Ali and Louis. Because they're not comparable. Louis and Ali beat better competition over a longer, more sustained period of time. I still think one or both at *their absolute best* lose to Tyson at his *absolute best*

I'm a huge MMA and boxing fan and these GOAT discussions are a lot of fun - i never tire of them, but they're also just really fungible. You can't just make a list and be done with it. I don't think you can put 'peak performance' ahead of 'sustained success' or vice versa. They're both wildly important and have to be part of the discussion.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
4,315
Reaction Score
7,397
That's a reasonable analysis. I'm 180 opposite vs you on Ali, but otherwise your points are thought out. Much like Jordan (and I only caught the tail end of Ali), you simply had to be there to understand the nature of his dominance and the way he defied expectations and kept beating all comers down. I rooted for Spinks to beat Ali way back when, then rooted for Ali to beat him back and was hooked. Again very tail end, at that point Ali was doing it on fumes, yet you could still sniff the greatness in those fumes (much like how Sugar Ray conjured it up vs Hagler). Indomitable will goes a long way for me with a boxer and that is only proven over adversity, time and many fights. Ali had that over anybody.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2015
Messages
1,970
Reaction Score
10,557
That's a reasonable analysis. I'm 180 opposite vs you on Ali, but otherwise your points are thought out. Much like Jordan (and I only caught the tail end of Ali), you simply had to be there to understand the nature of his dominance and the way he defied expectations and kept beating all comers down. I rooted for Spinks to beat Ali way back when, then rooted for Ali to beat him back and was hooked. Again very tail end, at that point Ali was doing it on fumes, yet you could still sniff the greatness in those fumes (much like how Sugar Ray conjured it up vs Hagler). Indomitable will goes a long way for me with a boxer and that is only proven over adversity, time and many fights. Ali had that over anybody.

I'd say BOTH guys have a lot of fairytale associated with them and a lot of marketing. Every guy does, and every generation that grows up with 'their guy' chugs it down. We're only human lol.

And not trying to sound cheesy, but Louis and Ali's careers are similar in so many ways but in kind of opposite end-around ways it's kind of wild.

-Both beat basically everyone worth beating
-Both avenged high profile losses with higher profile wins
-Were defined by politics in many ways
-Had prime years lopped off due to wars

Louis was obviously quieter while Ali wasn't but both won people over through dominance and success. Louis' star faded over the years and i'm sure Ali's will, too - but maybe i'm alone - but it's remarkable how similar they were.
 

Waquoit

Mr. Positive
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
33,346
Reaction Score
87,335
Let's be honest, Ali lost too many fights to guys he shouldn't have.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2015
Messages
1,970
Reaction Score
10,557
Let's be honest, Ali lost too many fights to guys he shouldn't have.

Eh - it evened out. He should have arguably lost both decisions to Norton. He was a better fighter than Frazier but uh... I dunno. Frazier fought a near flawless fight against him in 71.
 

Online statistics

Members online
411
Guests online
2,060
Total visitors
2,471

Forum statistics

Threads
158,911
Messages
4,173,341
Members
10,043
Latest member
coolbeans44


.
Top Bottom